You may only be able to burn on one burner at a time with ImgBurn, but you can run multiple instances of it, each to a different burner.
That didn't have anything to do with the original question that was asked! The original question was: The best answer that I've seen on this question was from ZoSoIV. The best reason that I've seen on this thread was from creaky. The objective is to make a minimum of two backups so that you have a master and one that the kids will probably mess up. Using ImgBurn on multiple burns kind of defeats the purpose, when you could use Nero and burn multiple copies at the same time. As I stated the original question has been answered very well.
Is there a way in Shrink to burn more than one copy without having to backup everytime? I know Shrink doesn't burn but when it automatically goes to searching for disc to burn onto it does not ask how many copies? Thanks![/quote]I believe Shrink does ask if you want to do another burn after when the first one's done. The only way I see this not going through the "backing up" process is to dupe it another copy.
If someone is still using DVD Shrink, and they do not have a copy of Nero then I could see your point as a valid one.
Does everyone make more than 1 backup copy of every movie even if you don't have any kids to mess them up? I could see this as getting very expensive quickly if you have a very large library of movies. I have never had a disc get messed up yet, but if it were to happen, I would just get my original disc and redo the backup. It would take much less time and money that way to do a few mess ups than multiples of every movie I own! If you have kids in the house then I might see making backups of the backups of their movies only and keeping the other movies out of their reach.
No, i only make an extra copy to cater for little fingers, though that said my kids are now old enough to be trusted with dvd's so any extra copies i burn are more out of habit now. I like to keep a small dvd case for the car as i have a twin dvd player system for the kids for long journeys As i say, going back and re-ripping the original (retail) in my case more often than not that means running the original disc thru DVD Rebuilder (45 mins encoding) then burning again. Plus for the last few weeks i've been re-ripping a large chunk of my movie collection so that i can convert to AVI, that's a lot of DVD Rebuilder processing... never mind the ripping (as it is i've 7 drives in constant use lately just for re-ripping, i have too many discs to chomp thru, am seeing discs in my sleep). Indeed. Whilst i am very strict in never wasting money, the cost of (some) blank discs here are at the stage where they're throwaway, they're like £18 per 100 for Verbatim's, it used to be £12 per 100 for Maxell the last time i bought any.
I also do exactly that... if it is a kiddie movie, I frequently burn an extra copy. Otherwise I rely on the notion that I can just copy the backup if it comes to that. Doing a 2nd turn at backing up from the original is the last resort because often much tweaking was required to get it to work and making decisions about what to cut out to squeeze into a regular DVD disc. It is not a click and its done operation (often).
I stopped using DVD Rebuilder because it took me 8-12 hours to encode using QuEnc, of course, I only tried it when the compression level falls below 60%, but then the quality is not any better than 'transcoding' it with DVDShrink. I did two discs using one and the other, needless to say I kept the DVD Shrink version because it had little or no macroblocking (pixeling) compared to DVDRB/QuEnc. Back to the subject; if kids have a habit of destroying discs with their dirty little fingers, I'd suggest a $25 VCR and a nice quality blank tape (erase, rerecord as often as you like), that way, you won't have to waste any more time doing your passes and encode/recode/transcode, otherwise it is only worth it to do it for backups, not for dirty little fingers.
Ouch, my main PC takes 45mins to do main movie mode and only an hour for episodic disks (i only use HC Encoder). The most extreme compression level i've had were the Battlestar Galactica seasons which were as low as 44% and considering Galactica has so many dark scenes the backups turned out very well indeed. I don't want to sidetrack this thread into the depths of DVD Rebuilder but i'm guessing your pixellating was down to QuEnc (not sure as i've never used that one) ot something else, as i don't get pixellation, in fact none of our regulars do either.. ..there is slight blocking on dark scenes when viewed from a distance, but that's different to pixellation (i'm guessing by macroblocking you mean the same difference as what i call slight blocking).
Yes, that's what I meant and it looked horrible when viewing dark scenes or towards the end credits. By the way, it's slow for me maybe because I'm running: PIII/1GB MHZ XP Home 768 SDRAM 30GB HD (with 15 GB left to play) I bought the thing back in '99-2000.
I'm not an expert but any tips to reduce the time would be much appreciated. Any simple tweak(s) I should be aware of? Thanx!
^^It won't install, keeps on giving me an error code with countdown, then shuts off. Source: http://www.bitburners.com/software/hc-encoder-v023/4036/#comments
Fixed. Downloaded the full installer. Didn't know there were two versions. It's okay now, it seems to have all the encoders available. I'll try a backup with this HC Encoder and see if it's feasible in terms quality/time consuming.
According to your system specs, it's gonna take some time. Best to set it before you go to sleep. When you wake up, it should be done.
I agree 100% with dialysis1. You have very little memory, and a slow processor which is going to cause it to run slow. When using DVD-RB you will get a better quality output than you do when you transcode a movie. It is not really that noticeable in slow films, but when you have an action packed movie with a lot of quick fight scenes and driving scenes it is very noticeable. Try encoding and transcoding Quantum of Solace or Transporter 3, and you will see the difference in the two. Pay attention to the quick scenes. You should also notice a better quality in the color of the picture on the encode vs. the transcode. Edit: Creaky, you were correct. This thread just kind of changed subjects didn't it!!
